I was reading a commentary today by Leonard Pitts, a Pulitzer Prize winning writer for The Miami Herald. Many of my hometown brethren may remember him, or still read him online. He wrote a commentary called 'Prince' doesn't guarantee happiness, about the role of women, specifically that many women still see marriage as the end game for their existence, that all facets of their lives wrap around to finding a husband. He then pointed to women in our celebrity atmosphere, and the gossip magazines that highlight their every foible, as an example of this. And this got me to wondering about the relationship between the celebrities, the gossip mags, and the readership that has an interest in such things.
While I can marginally agree, to a point, Pitts' assessment about the role of women as brides-in-waiting, as perceived by the populous, I think his use of the celebrity women culture as representative of that assessment is way off base.
The celebrity culture is bent on normal people perceiving them as having normal elements to their lives, making them relatable to us - while at the same time living vicariously through the fantasy world we imagine they live in. I've seen a couple of magazines in the doctor's office or supermarket (isn't that really the only time we peruse them?) even have sections of photos of celebrities at the grocery store, shopping for clothes, walking their dogs, going to restaurants, seeing movies, Christmas shopping, etc., with the page header: "Celebrities - they really are just like us!" - a shocking exhibit of mocking condescension...
The problem, of course, is that all those things are superficial elements of life. When people pine over celebrities, looking for signs that they still have something normal about them, one of the few things relatable to the rest of us are relationships. That's why they harp on Jennifer Anniston's reaction (or lack thereof) to an announcement that her ex-husband (Brad Pitt) is engaged to the woman she was left for (Angelina Jolie). If Anniston is cordial and wishing them happiness, we get to hear about her strength in the face of her past betrayal. If she is hurt by the news, we get to hear about her past betrayal continuing to haunt her on a new higher level - and it will be accompanied by a 15 year old stock photo of her crying, doctored to look recent. Because real people have a reaction to that type of information in their life. It makes the celebrity seem normal, however brief that may be.
The fact that celebrities tend to romance each other simply feeds the fantasy of normal people who dream of being with one of the beautiful people. It's why, if Jennifer Anniston started dating Jon Hamm tomorrow, it would be front page news. Two of the beautiful people got together - women who fantasize about Hamm will swoon at the thought. Men who fantasize about Anniston will envy that lucky SOB Hamm, who now gets to tap that regularly. The following weeks and months would be littered with pictures and marriage and baby hypotheticals, because that's what the gossips mags feed: the fantasy. And by the by, who says Jennifer Anniston doesn't get to have a life? Because she's famous, she shouldn't want motherhood or a husband, a family life? They've made fun of her for years for wanting children, and they've run the gamut on all the men she's dated in her failure to achieve that. Every time she dated someone new, they asked the question, "Is so-and-so the one?" I've never cared one way or the other about the celebrity culture, but there's something to be said for her being one of the few who have handled the extreme public coverage of her private life with great poise.
Because it didn't fit into the mold of Pitts' topic, he naturally left out the other thing that gossip mags highlight to breach the normalcy gap: illness. It's not just relationships that grace the covers. A celebrity who gets severely ill, especially if it's terminal, will get front page coverage counting down the days to their passing, accompanied by the requisite photos detailing their deterioration, supposed claims by friends and loved ones about the strength and fortitude and positive outlook by said celebrity. This stuff is exploited ad nauseum, even after they've passed away. It's how we, the little people, know that celebrities really are just like us - they even die...
As for the role of women, I think people generally define themselves, and their lives, by a few important markers: a career, any impact they can make on the world around them (most people choose philanthropy or major causes to fulfill that need), and, often the most important: family/children. Although their are exceptions among us, it's not in the emotional or hormonal nature of human beings to be alone. We look to connect with others and, women in particular, as the child-bearers, feel a strong urge and desire to be parents. While that can happen outside of marriage, a partner nourishes the love that urges a family.
I always thought that's what the Equal Rights Amendment was all about - the right of women to choose what they want for their lives, and be compensated accordingly (equal to men) if they chose to enter the workplace. But women are often looked down upon, sometimes by their own gender, if they choose to stay home and be a wife and mother, as if it's somehow contrary to the feminist movement. Ironically, Pitts often criticizes the single parent family in his commentaries, yet he now seems to criticize the notion that women may identify their lives through marriage. How sad, since our families are the most common benchmark of how most of us identify ourselves and our lives...
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/21/2759906/prince-doesnt-guarantee-happiness.html#disqus_thread#storylink=cpy
While I can marginally agree, to a point, Pitts' assessment about the role of women as brides-in-waiting, as perceived by the populous, I think his use of the celebrity women culture as representative of that assessment is way off base.
The celebrity culture is bent on normal people perceiving them as having normal elements to their lives, making them relatable to us - while at the same time living vicariously through the fantasy world we imagine they live in. I've seen a couple of magazines in the doctor's office or supermarket (isn't that really the only time we peruse them?) even have sections of photos of celebrities at the grocery store, shopping for clothes, walking their dogs, going to restaurants, seeing movies, Christmas shopping, etc., with the page header: "Celebrities - they really are just like us!" - a shocking exhibit of mocking condescension...
The problem, of course, is that all those things are superficial elements of life. When people pine over celebrities, looking for signs that they still have something normal about them, one of the few things relatable to the rest of us are relationships. That's why they harp on Jennifer Anniston's reaction (or lack thereof) to an announcement that her ex-husband (Brad Pitt) is engaged to the woman she was left for (Angelina Jolie). If Anniston is cordial and wishing them happiness, we get to hear about her strength in the face of her past betrayal. If she is hurt by the news, we get to hear about her past betrayal continuing to haunt her on a new higher level - and it will be accompanied by a 15 year old stock photo of her crying, doctored to look recent. Because real people have a reaction to that type of information in their life. It makes the celebrity seem normal, however brief that may be.
The fact that celebrities tend to romance each other simply feeds the fantasy of normal people who dream of being with one of the beautiful people. It's why, if Jennifer Anniston started dating Jon Hamm tomorrow, it would be front page news. Two of the beautiful people got together - women who fantasize about Hamm will swoon at the thought. Men who fantasize about Anniston will envy that lucky SOB Hamm, who now gets to tap that regularly. The following weeks and months would be littered with pictures and marriage and baby hypotheticals, because that's what the gossips mags feed: the fantasy. And by the by, who says Jennifer Anniston doesn't get to have a life? Because she's famous, she shouldn't want motherhood or a husband, a family life? They've made fun of her for years for wanting children, and they've run the gamut on all the men she's dated in her failure to achieve that. Every time she dated someone new, they asked the question, "Is so-and-so the one?" I've never cared one way or the other about the celebrity culture, but there's something to be said for her being one of the few who have handled the extreme public coverage of her private life with great poise.
Because it didn't fit into the mold of Pitts' topic, he naturally left out the other thing that gossip mags highlight to breach the normalcy gap: illness. It's not just relationships that grace the covers. A celebrity who gets severely ill, especially if it's terminal, will get front page coverage counting down the days to their passing, accompanied by the requisite photos detailing their deterioration, supposed claims by friends and loved ones about the strength and fortitude and positive outlook by said celebrity. This stuff is exploited ad nauseum, even after they've passed away. It's how we, the little people, know that celebrities really are just like us - they even die...
As for the role of women, I think people generally define themselves, and their lives, by a few important markers: a career, any impact they can make on the world around them (most people choose philanthropy or major causes to fulfill that need), and, often the most important: family/children. Although their are exceptions among us, it's not in the emotional or hormonal nature of human beings to be alone. We look to connect with others and, women in particular, as the child-bearers, feel a strong urge and desire to be parents. While that can happen outside of marriage, a partner nourishes the love that urges a family.
I always thought that's what the Equal Rights Amendment was all about - the right of women to choose what they want for their lives, and be compensated accordingly (equal to men) if they chose to enter the workplace. But women are often looked down upon, sometimes by their own gender, if they choose to stay home and be a wife and mother, as if it's somehow contrary to the feminist movement. Ironically, Pitts often criticizes the single parent family in his commentaries, yet he now seems to criticize the notion that women may identify their lives through marriage. How sad, since our families are the most common benchmark of how most of us identify ourselves and our lives...